Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6867598" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, to be fair, you're efforts are a refluff of game concepts.&nbsp; That flies at some tables, and doesn't at others.&nbsp; I recommend my excellent thread on what classes mean in fiction as an example.&nbsp; You're clearly in the 'refluff anything that isn't mechanics' camp.&nbsp; I spend a lot of time there as well, but I still have some quibbles with your efforts here.Firstly, I'd allow most of your examples in my game.&nbsp; I'm pretty free with such narrative descriptions, so long as they're not abused.&nbsp; My issue in the other thread that this spawned from was representing an established literary figure as someone with a 5 INT, which notably doesn't follow any of your examples here as all of your examples are bad at INT, but for differing reasons.&nbsp; I've no problem with a character with a 5 INT being played as someone deeply flawed and those flawed being the reason they don't think well.However, I think you're running into a bad issue with a free refluffing of what stats mean.&nbsp; This isn't like refluffing a longsword as a katana, because those are still both swords and used the same way.&nbsp; The fictional change there is slight.&nbsp; Refluffing stats to mean things different from the game text isn't a simple fiction overwrite, though, it's a change to a fundamental building block.&nbsp; 5e's pretty good for that because it's system design silos design elements, so you don't have the change cascade that 3 and 4e had, but still, touching those blocks can have serious knockon effects.&nbsp; Danny's slipperly slope isn't unreasonable if you allow fundamental building blocks to be reimagined on the fly during the game.That said, though, none of your examples really refluff INT too much.&nbsp; Instead, you're still working with INT being reasoning and recall, you're just changing the fictional description of why you're bad at those things.&nbsp; A 5 INT is still bad at reasoning and recall, but instead of saying that's because you're just dumb, it's because you have some other flaw that's interfering with normal thinking, be it a patron, insanity, crippling social anxiety, or the madness of love.&nbsp; All of that works for me, so long as it remains a constant during play.&nbsp; Being a genius except when you fail an INT check isn't playing a flaw, it's gaming the system with a canny description.&nbsp; That might not be a problem for you, but it is for others that prefer more fidelity in their games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6867598, member: 16814"] Well, to be fair, you're efforts are a refluff of game concepts. That flies at some tables, and doesn't at others. I recommend my excellent thread on what classes mean in fiction as an example. You're clearly in the 'refluff anything that isn't mechanics' camp. I spend a lot of time there as well, but I still have some quibbles with your efforts here. Firstly, I'd allow most of your examples in my game. I'm pretty free with such narrative descriptions, so long as they're not abused. My issue in the other thread that this spawned from was representing an established literary figure as someone with a 5 INT, which notably doesn't follow any of your examples here as all of your examples are bad at INT, but for differing reasons. I've no problem with a character with a 5 INT being played as someone deeply flawed and those flawed being the reason they don't think well. However, I think you're running into a bad issue with a free refluffing of what stats mean. This isn't like refluffing a longsword as a katana, because those are still both swords and used the same way. The fictional change there is slight. Refluffing stats to mean things different from the game text isn't a simple fiction overwrite, though, it's a change to a fundamental building block. 5e's pretty good for that because it's system design silos design elements, so you don't have the change cascade that 3 and 4e had, but still, touching those blocks can have serious knockon effects. Danny's slipperly slope isn't unreasonable if you allow fundamental building blocks to be reimagined on the fly during the game. That said, though, none of your examples really refluff INT too much. Instead, you're still working with INT being reasoning and recall, you're just changing the fictional description of why you're bad at those things. A 5 INT is still bad at reasoning and recall, but instead of saying that's because you're just dumb, it's because you have some other flaw that's interfering with normal thinking, be it a patron, insanity, crippling social anxiety, or the madness of love. All of that works for me, so long as it remains a constant during play. Being a genius except when you fail an INT check isn't playing a flaw, it's gaming the system with a canny description. That might not be a problem for you, but it is for others that prefer more fidelity in their games. [/QUOTE]

Verification